Is Microsoft really worried about maintaining its monopoly? Perhaps not on the desktop, but it would like the same kind of power in the server market. And, in that market Linux can beat it. So they are truly worried.

The real problem is that Microsoft's dominance is so powerful that truly innovative ideas are left fluttering in the wind with little or no chance of being utilized in the industry. Take a look at the development of open source software. Almost no one is being paid for their work. Oh, they are willing to do the research and development. And, they are clearly capable of doing the work. But, the industry is so "out of whack" that they can not be compensated for their effort. There are so many people willing to work without compensation that good products surface regardless. (Maybe it is a good thing they have day jobs.)

Now Microsoft could fix things. They could just hire all of the smart and innovative open source developers. They did this with Borland employees a few years back when they first developed some great RAD tools. But, of course, many open source advocates would never accept work in Redmond. As an alternative, Microsoft could try to emulate what open source is doing, but they really should patch things up with AT&T and Bristol before they will be taken seriously by anyone. Or, they could do to Linux what they did with Java.

Personally, I think the solution may come as a remedy in the DOJ case. It may not get there. But, I think it should.

The court should take the code base for 95/98/NT and sell it 6 or 8 times to many major players in the industry. IBM, HP, Symantec, Compaq, Sun, Novell, Corel and even Inprise would be interested in submitting bids. Even the old Microsoft should be permitted to form a new company and buy a non-exclusive copy.

What would that do? And, how does it relate to open source products?

Well. Those 6 or 7 players would find it in their interest to form a standards body so that all applications (present and furture) would run on their version. Secondly, the OS would never have the ability to adopt and extent in the way Microsoft sabotaged Java or the way the Halloween papers indicates that Microsoft threatens to sabotage open source products. Stockholders get paid. Employees have a choice of employers. Customers can stay with their applications. Third party developers can offer products without the threat of unfair competition. And to the surprise of everyone NT products would begin to truly cooperate with Unix products. Customers win hands down.

The difference is that a single corporation no longer runs a monopolistic operation. The difference is that no corporation has an incentive to divide and conquer the customers.

But, what does it do with open source products. Well those same 7 or 8 companies may very well distribute an open source system as well. The major companies sell and support multiple platforms now. They support NT now. They are all considering the support of open source now. Again, the only real difference is that the monopoly and its harmful affects are gone. Open source products can flourish if they have merit. There is nothing wrong with that.

I think that the answer is either split Microsoft in this way, or allow the monopolist to sabotage all new and innovative products that come down the line. If you want to see a list of the technologies suppressed by Microsoft and its business practices, many in the industry can put the list together. And, it will be a real large list. Products from Netscape, Intuit, RealNetworks, Apple, Corel and others may not be on that "dead list" yet. But, Microsoft is not finished with them. Microsoft has hired big time lawyers and sent them to court to nail down the boards. Microsoft will use its money, its lawyers and its monopoly to prevent and preclude everyone from competing with it. Consent decrees are ignored. Laws are ignored. Customers rights are ignored. Microsoft has even engaged in consumer fraud in order to force the sale of its products.

This country can ill afford to stifle innovation just so Microsoft can keep its monopoly and do as it pleases.

Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.